The purpose is to create, observe, learn, and evolve. To have fun. — Rich

Sounds a bit like what Jim Carrey said: "We're just conscious awareness dancing for itself for no other reason but to stay amused."

Or, like I said earlier, could we be part of the universe figuring out its own existence, not really having or not really knowing a true purpose; having vast intelligence, but only semi-aware, similar to the drug-induced states we can experience as humans.

Self-awareness is but one other thing that we can do to amuse ourselves. A game of hide-and-seek.

Could it be said that science's inability to explain the reason for the seemingly intelligent behavior of subatomic particles and the nature of consciousness supports the idea that there is some sort of ID at work, perhaps one that is still becoming aware of its own nature? The ever-increasing known complexity of the universe seems congruent with elements of biocentrism and quantum mechanics - where things only exist when observed. Did atoms exist before we were able to see them, or is that just the universe's attempt to explain all of the wondrous things it has unwittingly created in a vastly intelligent semi-aware state? — CasKev

There are many different points in that short passage. First, I don’t know if it can be said that sub-atomic particles do exhibit ‘intelligent behaviour’. It’s more to the point that they might not actually be ‘particles’ - according to the well-known ‘complementarity principle’, there is something that appears as a particle under particular circumstances, but in other contexts can be thought of as a wave. At the very least, this throws into question explanations for phenomena in terms of the deterministic outcomes of particulate matter.

And when you say there’s ID ‘at work’, what are you trying to single out? What are you trying to identify? Richard Dawkins says that if there were to be a being capable of engineering the complexity of the whole universe, then that being must be more complex than the whole universe. Whereas theology actually says that the ‘first principle’ is completely simple. So how to reconcile those viewpoints?

As for atoms existing ‘before we see them’ - again it undermines the realist view that the Universe simply exists prior to our observation of it. But the idea that our observing of it causes it to exist seems nonsensical. My interpretation is that perception is an inextricable aspect of the whole, but one which science generally ignores. So science proceeds as if we are seeing a universe that exists from no viewpoint, but in reality, a viewpoint is inescapably part of the whole. But asking about that viewpoint, asking ‘what role does the observer play?’, is not a scientific question.

In any case, as you’re correctly observing, developments in science itself have very much thrown realist epistemologies into question. That seems to be more evident in physics than in biology, however - many biologists still seem to hark back to a Victorian-era attitude of naive realism.

If the universe has been around for over 14 billion years, why wouldn't it be more than likely that some civilization now has the ability to create realities for us to experience; and that we are also part of that creation process. Moreover, it may be that they even have the ability to move from universe to universe. We couldn't even conceive of how advanced such a civilization could be. To say that there is nothing beyond the physical is just too dogmatic for me. It's similar to religious belief.

For me, consciousness is much more than what goes on in the brain, which is what I attempted to explain in my thread on NDEs. — Sam26

I am a theist and I do have faith in a Heaven where all tears will be wiped away. However, I freely admit that I do not know what this would look like beyond the bare description - in other words, existence beyond this material world remains unimaginable to me.

I read your NDEs thread. The issue with that argument is that it has little purchasing power with those who did not have such experiences. Literarily, we don't have the sensations those people had, the raw data, to be able to make those judgements. The NDEs show that this is a possibility, perhaps even a likely possibility, but it remains meaningless to us because we cannot begin to imagine it - we lack the necessary sense data.

So to say that consciousness is beyond what goes on in the brain, fine, I agree. But what does that mean, practically? Where was consciousness before birth? Where will it be after death? What is the relationship between consciousness and memory? Etc. We have an extremely blurry image.

One can compare this to trying to convey the taste of pineapple to someone who has never tasted it. Whatever you say, the argument will in the end be meaningless to that person.

I've nearly died twice. Both times, I simply lost consciousness, and regained consciousness not too long thereafter. No lights, no experiences, nothing (similar to when I've been put to sleep for ECT). Both times, my survival was unlikely, there were no direct witnesses, and it was impossible to validate the chain of events. This is what points me toward Question 1 & Option 1 plus Question 2 & Option 3 having some credibility.

I read your NDEs thread. The issue with that argument is that it has little purchasing power with those who did not have such experiences. Literarily, we don't have the sensations those people had, the raw data, to be able to make those judgements. The NDEs show that this is a possibility, perhaps even a likely possibility, but it remains meaningless to us because we cannot begin to imagine it - we lack the necessary sense data.

So to say that consciousness is beyond what goes on in the brain, fine, I agree. But what does that mean, practically? Where was consciousness before birth? Where will it be after death? What is the relationship between consciousness and memory? Etc. We have an extremely blurry image. — Agustino

Do I need to have your experiences, of say, going to France in order for me to know that your experience is real? We can know that an experience is real if there is enough evidence to support it. I don't need to have the experience myself. If that was the case, we wouldn't know if many of the experiences that people had were real. Whether it has "purchasing power" for someone is dependent on a lot of factors, including psychological factors.

What does it mean? Well, for one thing I believe it answers some age old questions about consciousness, but one can draw many other conclusions, as I have based on the evidence. These are only the first steps in a long journey of understanding.

We can know that an experience is real if there is enough evidence to support it. I don't need to have the experience myself. — Sam26

Sure, but the reality of that would be meaningless to the person lacking the experience. What does sight mean to someone who has never seen in their life? Sure, they hear from this and that that there is this thing called sight - so what? It means nothing to them.

When one goes to sleep or when one enters unconsciousness, all materiality and sense of duration disappears.

When one becomes unconscious, it is no longer accessing memory which is embedded in the fabric of the universe. You can say, one is asleep but the memory is still there if it can be accessed. When one awakens, one again is accessing the memory. How? Via electrical transmissions from the brain. The brain is a transmitter/receiver and accesses memory at particular frequencies which it is attuned to. But, the memories itself lie in the universal fabric. In such a manner, depending upon the state of the mind, the mind can go from an awake state, to a dream state, to a sleep/non-dream states, to an unconscious state (e.g. dehydration or severe injury), and ultimately a death state.

But memory is always there and can be accessed, even within life-death cycles, hence the phenomenon of inherited characteristics and innate skills. Memory is evolving along with consciousness.

I don’t think that it’s necessary to invoke Intelligent Design (which amounts to Theism) at the metaphysical level, to explain how there could be a metaphysical world, including living beings like ourselves. It seems to me that the “existence” of the metaphysical world can be explained, within itself, without outside or higher invocation. — Michael Ossipoff


Michael, I don't see how intelligent design is Theistic ("or amounts to Theism"), even at the metaphysical level. I know that Theists use the argument to support their belief that the universe was created by God, but all the intelligent design argument concludes is that there was a designer or designers. The argument says nothing about the nature of the designer, or even the character of the designer.
— Sam26

I just assumed that it was a kind of Theism. I don't want to presume to speak for someone else about what their position is.

But, if it isn't Theism, then what are the alternative proposals for who the designer is (or who the designers are)?

If the designers/creators are physical, like biological organisms, or robots or computers, who have created a computer simulation that is our world, I've told why I claim that "simulated-universe" theory is insupportable:

The theory is that, somehow, the transistor-switchings in some computer somewhere "makes" our world. How is that "making" supposed to happen? The computer's program could correspond to one of the infinitely-many possibility-stories, but the person who wrote the program didn't "make" that story. It was/is already timelessly "there", as a system of abstract facts. Nor does the computer's execution of the program "make" that story

The computer can only duplicate and display that story for its viewing audience. Neither the computer, nor its programmer can make that possibility-story, which was/is timelessly there.

If it's a nonphysical designer and creator, then how is that different from what many people mean by God? ...or by the gods?

As for myself, I say that the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic. Very few things can be said about Reality beyond what's describable and discussable--In fact, that's a truism. Metaphysics is the limit of what's describable and discussable.

My own view is that the universe does show evidence of design

It goes without saying that, when physicists investigate and examine the physical world, what they find is going to be consistent with our being here.

Designed that way?

I've been telling an alternative explanation: There are infinitely-many abstract if-then facts, and infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts. Of course, among that infinity of systems, there must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.

There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.

That's your life-experience possibility-story. It goes without saying that it would be consistent with there being you. So that that consistent-ness needn't be explained by design.

...consciousness survives bodily existence.

Of course, And that's so whether or not there's reincarnation. A person never experiences a time without experience.

The sleep at the end of lives (or the end of this life, if there isn't reincarnation) is timeless. Before actual complete shutdown (which of course is never expesrienced by the dying person), there's a time when there remains no memory or knowledge that there was or could be such things as life, world, body, identity, time, or events. That person has reached timelessness, and the impending complete shutdown has then become completely irrelevant and meaningless for him/her. S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs.

Michael Ossipoff

Sure, but the reality of that would be meaningless to the person lacking the experience. What does sight mean to someone who has never seen in their life? Sure, they hear from this and that that there is this thing called sight - so what? It means nothing to them. — Agustino

So if I haven't had the experience of going to France, as say, you have, then the reality of your experience would be meaningless to me? That makes no sense to me. If that was the case, then why explain to people what it's like. Your friend explains their experience of going to France, but you say to him, it's meaningless to me, so don't bother. That seems a bit strange to me. Now some experiences are more difficult to explain than others, but I don't see how they're meaningless.

So if I haven't had the experience of going to France, as say, you have, then the reality of your experience would be meaningless to me? That makes no sense to me. If that was the case, then why explain to people what it's like. Your friend explains their experience of going to France, but you say to him, it's meaningless to me, so don't bother. That seems a bit strange to me. Now some experiences are more difficult to explain than others, but I don't see how they're meaningless. — Sam26

False analogy. I have seen buildings, I have seen France on TV, etc. Easy for me to imagine.

The analogy of the man born blind that I gave is more fitting.

But, if it isn't Theism, then what are the alternative proposals for who the designer is (or who the designers are)? — Michael Ossipoff

Why does there have to be alternative proposals? The argument simply states that there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe. Why do I have to say who the designers are? Some like to think it's there version of God, others contemplate other beings who have much more power and intelligence than we do. The argument, as far as I can tell, says nothing about it being a god or gods. If you're religious, then you'll probably believe it's the God you believe in, if not, you'll think it's something else.

If it's a nonphysical designer and creator, then how is that different from what many people mean by God? ...or by the gods? — Michael Ossipoff

Many of my metaphysical beliefs have come from the evidence of near death experiences, which I talk about in my thread (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1). Many people posit a God who is all-power, all-knowing, etc., but why does the being/s have to be like that. The designers could be much less powerful, be billions of them, and yet have an incorporeal existence, which many NDErs report. If this is the case, then there are no gods as we conceive of them (mainly thinking along the lines of the main religions).

As for myself, I say that the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic. Very few things can be said about Reality beyond what's describable and discussable--In fact, that's a truism. Metaphysics is the limit of what's describable and discussable. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree, I believe the notion of "creation" or intelligent design is anthropomorphic. I also agree with your last two statements.

It goes without saying that, when physicists investigate and examine the physical world, what they find is going to be consistent with our being here. — Michael Ossipoff

I think it shows more than that though. Of course it's going to be consistent with us being here, but it goes beyond that, it tells us something about intelligence beyond our own, not just because we are reading into what we see, but because of the facts themselves; and about what we know about things that are intelligently designed.

I've been telling an alternative explanation: There are infinitely-many abstract if-then facts, and infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts. Of course, among that infinity of systems, there must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.

There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.

That's your life-experience possibility-story. It goes without saying that it would be consistent with there being you. So that that consistent-ness needn't be explained by design. — Michael Ossipoff

That's certainly a possibility, but if the evidence of NDEs are as strong as I think, then it's probably much different than just my existence fits within the realm of what's possible. Anything that exists fits within the logic of what's metaphysically possible, if it's true that all facts obtain, but I don't know that that is true. Everyday within a particular universe new facts obtain, it's not static. Although maybe one could argue that every possibility at some point will obtain, especially if you believe in multiple universes.

For me, consciousness lies at the bottom of everything (it's what unites everything), even this reality is a result of a mind or consciousness, and we are just a part of that, with our own individuality. Some might ask, well isn't that a god of sorts? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I'm agnostic about that.

Of course, And that's so whether or not there's reincarnation. A person never experiences a time without experience.

The sleep at the end of lives (or the end of this life, if there isn't reincarnation) is timeless. Before actual complete shutdown (which of course is never expesrienced by the dying person), there's a time when there remains no memory or knowledge that there was or could be such things as life, world, body, identity, time, or events. That person has reached timelessness, and the impending complete shutdown has then become completely irrelevant and meaningless for him/her. S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know what evidence there would be for your second paragraph, that is, "The sleep at the end of lives...," etc. I can't make any sense of a person having existence in timelessness, I'm not sure what that would mean. Unless you're talking about ceasing to exist, then of course there would be no experiences for you to have.

My take is based on what I've discovered after studying NDEs for over 12 years. The evidence suggests something quite different. I think we go on as temporal individuals, and that we experience many different lives in many different universes. This is more of an educated guess though, based on the studies.

How could these quarks assemble and organize without some sort of outside guidance? A computer could never have been created - never mind programmed - without some sort of intelligent designer. — CasKev

Seems interesting to me that you don't use life, but physical reality, as the gawking point.

I think the sense of awe one feels when looking at the complexity of the world is what the argument for an intelligent designer mostly leans on, rhetorically speaking. It's why people find it persuasive.

But if there were some other answer as to why the universe is complicated, what then? Perhaps the universe is complicated because it has many entities with a myriad of properties and relations between said entities, properties, and relations. Perhaps it's just very large in relation to our cognitive capacities. Larger than what our feeble minds are able to comprehend, at least independently (as, even assuming science explains it all, that only happened through collective intergenerational effort that continues to go on to this day)

I think that the argument for an intelligent designer is nothing more than analogical reasoning supported by gawking at the intricate nature of things. I would ask, though, for believers in an intelligent designer: What does something which is not designed look like?

It seems to me that without some sort of basis of comparison between the two that no fair judgment can be made, and we are simply left with how compelling we feel awe at intricacy and complexity is. Which, in my round-about way, is what I'm trying to get at -- the argument needs more than merely listing things which the speaker finds too complicated to believe would form of themselves, since clearly there are those who find that notion just as plausible.

What counts as evidence in the conversation, either way?

can't make any sense of a person having existence in timelessness — Sam26

It happens all the time. When one is asleep or unconscious there is no sense of duration (real time). We feel Dustin in the awake state.

I would ask, though, for believers in an intelligent designer: What does something which is not designed look like? — Moliere

One point that occurs to me, is that if the only real examples of 'design' are those created intentionally by h. sapiens - and obviously we're totally sorrounded by them! - then how come the total gulf between 'what humans design' and all the other 'natural artefacts' that only 'appear designed' but aren't really designed?

Richard Dawkins says that life has 'the appearance of design' but is not actually designed. So 'design' only applies to human artefacts.

It does seem a bit incongruous to me, that complete gap or division.

Design (I would use the term creative force)

1) Moves against entropy (organizes)

2) Creates and recognizes repeatable patterns

In essence this is Memory which is recognized through Nature. It is quite clear that creating and recognizing patterns goes far beyond homo sapiens.

Deadened mind (matter) moves with entropy. The difference between the two is quite significant, philosophically and beyond.

I would ask, though, for believers in an intelligent designer: What does something which is not designed look like? — Moliere

I don't find that a difficult question. Look at the shape of the sand in the dessert caused by eddies, or the random placement of rocks on the ground. There are too many examples to list.

On the other hand, if those who don't believe in intelligent design aren't committing the fallacy of the self-sealing argument, answer the following: What would count as evidence of intelligent design? When we say that something is intelligently designed what does that mean other than, a structure having parts so arranged that the whole can accomplish or be used to accomplish activities of a higher order. Isn't this the hallmark of any intelligently designed object. Is there anything that you know of that has been intelligently designed that doesn't fit this description, assuming someone isn't aiming at randomness?

It happens all the time. When one is asleep or unconscious there is no sense of duration (real time). Duration only exists in the awake state. — Rich

Having no sense of time, and existing outside of time are two different things. We often have no sense of time even when we are awake. Besides it's not as though your body is outside time when you're unconscious. In fact, if we were really outside of time when we were unconscious we wouldn't wake up. There would be no moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, which involves change or time.

Having no sense of time, and existing outside of time are two different things — Sam26

I have no idea what it means to exist out of time. When we are awake, we feel duration. When we are unconscious or asleep, there is no duration. When we are dreaming, there is duration but of a completely different sort no boundaries on space.

I have no idea what it would mean to exist outside of time either, that's my point.

I don't find that a difficult question. Look at the shape of the sand in the dessert caused by eddies, or the random placement of rocks on the ground. There are too many examples to list. — Sam26

Cool. Examples are nice. In some sense if one believes in an intelligent designer to the universe it would seem to me that even the eddies in the sand could be thought of as intelligently designed. But having examples to draw from helps in making a clear distinction between the two.

On the other hand, if those who don't believe in intelligent design aren't committing the fallacy of the self-sealing argument, answer the following: What would count as evidence of intelligent design? When we say that something is intelligently designed what does that mean other than, a structure having parts so arranged that the whole can accomplish or be used to accomplish activities of a higher order. Isn't this the hallmark of any intelligently designed object. Is there anything that you know of that has been intelligently designed that doesn't fit this description, assuming someone isn't aiming at randomness?

It seems to me that in order for something to be intelligently designed I'd just go to what the words seem to mean in a plain way, at least at first: someone intelligent built something from a design. So we have a tree, which is not intelligently designed, and then we have a chair, which is.

It's not the complexity so much, as a chair is rather simple, but that an entity bears the hallmarks of artifice. (and, it's worth noting, that artifice works on something to make something else -- it doesn't create the beginning, so to speak)

Is it a higher order? I'm not so sure about that. The tree seems more complicated to me than the chair, for instance. But the chair is certainly a product of intelligent design.

even the eddies in the sand could be thought of as intelligently designed — Moliere

. Look at the shape of the sand in the dessert caused by eddies, or the random placement of rocks on the ground. — Sam26

One point is, crystals and rock formations don't display any of the recognisable characteristics of organisms, which is the ability to grow, heal, reproduce and evolve, and maintain homeostasis. There are explanations for how such things evolve, but they're considerably more complex than eddies or crystals.

The tree seems more complicated to me than the chair, for instance. But the chair is certainly a product of intelligent design. — Moliere

The chair is an artefact, so obviously it is designed, as that is the meaning of 'artefact'.

This is just a quick preliminary reply. If this reply misses anything, I'll reply more tomorrow.
\

"But, if it isn't Theism, then what are the alternative proposals for who the designer is (or who the designers are)?" — Michael Ossipoff


Why does there have to be alternative proposals? — Sam26

i was just looking at what I considered the 2 possibilities. But sure, nonphysical entities that could be responsible for worlds needn't necessarily really fit what is usually meant by reference to God or gods.


I'd said:

I've been telling an alternative explanation: There are infinitely-many abstract if-then facts, and infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts. Of course, among that infinity of systems, there must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.

There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.

That's your life-experience possibility-story. It goes without saying that it would be consistent with there being you. So that that consistent-ness needn't be explained by design.

You replied:

That's certainly a possibility, but if the evidence of NDEs are as strong as I think, then it's probably much different than just my existence fits within the realm of what's possible. Anything that exists fits within the logic of what's metaphysically possible, if it's true that all facts obtain, but I don't know that that is true.

For my metaphysics, it isn't necessary to say that abstract facts would obtain in the absence of any experiencer, or that there couldn't have been Nothing with no abstract facts at all. (I think there are things that can be said on those matters, but those issues aren't crucial to my metaphysics.)

Everyday within a particular universe new facts obtain, it's not static.

Sure, we perceive the hypothetical "facts" that are the "if " premises and "then" conclusions of abstract if-then facts to be true--at least in relation to eachother, in their if-then relation. But I don't claim that they are. What's always timelessly true are the abstract if-then facts themselves. The "if" premises and "then" conclusions needn't be true, and I don't make any claim that they really are.

Although maybe one could argue that every possibility at some point will obtain, especially if you believe in multiple universes.

I claim that the abstract if-then facts constituting our life-experience possibility-stories are timelessly true. ...like the fact that if all dogs are mammals, and if all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals.

For me, consciousness lies at the bottom of everything (it's what unites everything), even this reality is a result of a mind or consciousness, and we are just a part of that, with our own individuality.

Yes I think there's something to that, because obvious we are the central and primary component of our life-experience possibility-stories. Those stories are entirely about us and our experience. We're central to all of that. So arguably, as far as our life-experience possibility stories go (and I regard them as what metaphysically is, at least as far as we're concerned), we could be said to be primary.

Some might ask, well isn't that a god of sorts? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I'm agnostic about that.

Or it seems maybe compatible with the notion of Soul or Atman, though I don't say it that way.


I'd said:

Of course, And that's so whether or not there's reincarnation. A person never experiences a time without experience.

The sleep at the end of lives (or the end of this life, if there isn't reincarnation) is timeless. Before actual complete shutdown (which of course is never expesrienced by the dying person), there's a time when there remains no memory or knowledge that there was or could be such things as life, world, body, identity, time, or events. That person has reached timelessness, and the impending complete shutdown has then become completely irrelevant and meaningless for him/her. S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs.

You replied:

I don't know what evidence there would be for your second paragraph, that is, "The sleep at the end of lives...," etc. I can't make any sense of a person having existence in timelessness, I'm not sure what that would mean. Unless you're talking about ceasing to exist, then of course there would be no experiences for you to have.

I'm just suggesting that, at a late stage of shutdown, but before experience really shuts down, there wouldn't remain any awareness that there are, were or could be such a thing as identity, time or events. That's all I meant by "timelessness".

My take is based on what I've discovered after studying NDEs for over 12 years. The evidence suggests something quite different. I think we go on as temporal individuals, and that we experience many different lives in many different universes. This is more of an educated guess though, based on the studies.

Absolutely. I believe that there's probably reincarnation, because, as i was saying, it's metaphysically implied and supported.

So, for nearly all of us (and almost surely for all of us at these forums) there's a--probably long--sequence of lives.

And yes, there's no reason to expect those lives to all be in the same world. ...but one would expect them to be in somewhat similar worlds, to the extent called for by the person's subconscious wants, needs, inclinations and predispositions.

I suggest that the sleep at the end-of-lives occurs only upon life-completion, after a (fairly large) finite number of lives

Michael Ossipoff

S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs. — Michael Ossipoff

I have some sympathy with the idea of eternal (meaning not perpetual, but atemporal) existence. But we cannot conceive how that would be, so we cannot say "she neither knows, nor cares" or "it's just sleep" or that it's "our natural, normal and usual state of affairs". These kinds of statements simply make no sense in the context of eternity; they are 'temporamorphic' projections. Probably we cannot form any statements that do make sense in that context, other than apophatic ones.

Will reply tomorrow morning if i don't tonight.

Michael Ossipoff

The chair is an artefact, so obviously it is designed, as that is the meaning of 'artefact'. — Wayfarer

Granted I am risking going into tautological territory. I'm hoping that by reference to particulars, like a chair, the gist comes across without merely being some convenient definition for my purposes, though.

Mostly I'm trying to highlight that artifacts are made from something more basic, and they need not be more complex than what they are made of (though "complex" may not be the same as being higher or lower order -- I'll wait to see what @Sam26 says)

(((edited for clarity -- fewer pronouns and whatnot)))

Because nothingness wouldn't require all of the perfect variables that make our existence possible. Because there would be no paradoxes to explain away. — CasKev

What perfect variables? Reality is just some way and we create models of it. What paradox? The universe just exists.

I'll wait to see what Sam26 says — Moliere

What am I supposed to respond to, can't see where someone challenged anything, or asked a question.

Absolutely. I believe that there's probably reincarnation, because, as i was saying, it's metaphysically implied and supported. — Michael Ossipoff

This is more of a technical point, but I'm careful about using the term reincarnation, because of the religious baggage.

That said, there seems to be plenty of evidence in what NDErs are claiming that supports the idea that we choose, for example, to come here to have specific experiences. Or that we choose to come here, not only for the experiences of being human, and the limitations that brings, but for the experiences of others who also choose to come here. Moreover, I think this life is meant to be very difficult, it's not meant to be a good time, although we can experience good times. Most come here, it's my contention, to experience the struggle. You can compare it to someone who wants to scale a mountain, and the struggles that ensue, or an athlete who struggles to attain perfection. I think the struggle here generally makes our character stronger, but there are probably many other reasons too.